Replies

David Frum is a petty opportunist who's been making a career as an ideological hitman for over a decade. He always goes in for overkill to cover the precariousness of his own position as a wealthy, ambitious and callow Canadian who's been able to attain prominence with little knowledge of the world and no real skills or expertise to explain justify his rise.

Frum's strategy here involves wrapping himself in the flag and making a fetish out of "sides," rather than examining the broader implications of proposed policies. There is a case to be made that the administration's approach doesn't represent our own best interest. And dubious political alliances and racial views aren't any monopoly of paleocons. There's always been a place for them in National Review. The desire to remake the world, power worship, and arrogance of the neo- and NR-cons certainly deserves criticism and perhaps reproach.

At the core of American conservatism has long been a skepticism about the project of forcibly democratizing the world. There's always been debate about just what the "real America" was and whether it could simply be identified with GNP or world power, as well as a tension between the local and the global, between the institutions of a particular society and global ideologies and values. It may be that such skepticism about remaking the world must be overcome now, as it was during past wars and struggles, but skeptics and critics shouldn't be silenced by charges of disloyalty or lack of patriotism. Historically, much of American conservatism reflects their view.

I don't have any use for Fleming, Rockwell and their camp. Francis is brilliant, but hardly an appealing or worthy character. The same is more or less true of Gottfried. The paleocons have squandered whatever chances they've had to make a difference in American politics. They've acted too much out of emotion and pique. They've thoughtlessly embraced some questionable assumptions and causes.

But reading National Review lately, it seems to have been taken over by a similar narrow, self-promoting, ideological clique. There isn't any space in their pages for those who are critical of their own dubious assumptions about the likely consequences of their policies.

At National Review, small-town, main street conservatism has taken a backseat to dreams of global empire. Hence the appeal of Buchanan to some who grew up with such Middle American conservatism. There are no "realcons" -- no faction that represents an authentic, "real conservatism" -- nor could there be. But it does look like a substantial part of the American conservative base -- by no means just bigots and fringers -- has been dumped by NR in its drive to become the house journal of the new American elite.

In a decade, all these hucksters and clowns from Rockwell to Frum, Fleming to Hanson, Raimondo to Goldberg will have been forgotten or universally reviled. Either conservatives will outgrow such food fights and come to address the real problems of Americans, or they'll end up back on the fringes of political discourse.

The paleocon/paleolibertarian vision of chopping up the federal government, and perhaps the country as well, won't come to pass. It's always been more a stupid emotional reaction than a realistic plan. If some government programs are repealed it will be because the average voter is convinced that they no longer serve their purpose, not because one ideological orthodoxy wins out over another.

But today's neocon neo-imperialists are bound to look worse and worse in the future as their deceptions and arrogance are revealed. Just as we have a hard time today understanding why sauerkraut, hamburgers and frankfurters were renamed in 1917, a lot of today's hysteria will baffle us later. Just as we wonder about Wilson's or FDR's or LBJ's rosy expectations in 1917 or 1942 or 1965 -- even if we support their wars -- we'll be puzzled for a long time about today's millenarian rhetoric, even if we go along with GWB's decision.

Excellent post, thank you.

Sir, can I have your autograph? Well spoken! Well spoken, indeed!

Rockwell is caring on a tradition established by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard; Fleming, may prove to be a huckster, but the League of the South--which he founded-- will outlive him, I suspect.

Francis wants nothing more than to pull the conservative movement over to Jared Taylors neck of the woods, and I think that is something libertarians will not tolerate. But what we have gotten from the past decade is a search for an authentic American voice of dissent from the anti-anti-Federalist who would have looked at the Constitution as a coup d'etat and Jefferson as a sellout. It has been and continues to be a rich debate, cemented in Murray Rothbard and Fleming's Hard Right.

Thanks for your post. Labels, labels, labels. Neocon? Paleocon? Southern agrarian anarchists? I read the Weekly Standard, The American Conservative, National Review, Antiwar.com, and bunch of other sites and columnists. I don't have any flavor of conservatism that I agree with totally.

But for Frum to lump the likes of Raimondo in with Novak is just a disgusting guilt by association tactic (I have never liked Frum- twerp of the first order.)

I find myself in agreement with Buchanan with his last column. Now that the shooting has started let's hope for victory. We can resume the nit picking after when Sadaam is gone.

But overall- when reading the "neocon" war supporters I get a bad feeling that they really don't know what they are talking about, have lied, and are lying about a host of things. I feel they see things- not from how they are- but how they wish them to be. And though I don't agree with much of "paleo" thought I find the "neocon" or pro war right responses to the questions raised by the old right to be troubling (and should raise alarm bells with anyone.)